Lyotard's theory of postmodernism basically says that, "all the world's cultures, rituals, races, databanks, myths, and musical motifs, are intermixing like a smorgasbord in an earthquake" (Postmodernism for Beginners). He also says that it's the postmodernists job to represent the individual groups and cultures. Essentially postmodern, to my understanding, is the antithesis to finding a central "truth" in society, and letting the individual mind run.
I see this theory throughout Cat's Cradle. The biggest representation of this theory I see is the entire 'religion' of Bokononism. Before the novel even begins, Vonnegut starts by quoting the Books of Bokonon which says "live by the foma (harmless untruths) that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy". Throughout the rest of the novel, Vonnegut makes it a point to stress how Bokononism believes in lying to oneself in order to live a happy life. The point I think he is trying to make, by contrasting Bokonon with all the scientists looking for "absolute truth" which only kills hundreds of thousands of people (atom bomb), you can lie to yourself and live a perfectly normal, happy life. I believe he is making the postmodern point that individuals may live how they want to, and they do not have to be entirely structured the way the rest of society is, and still be happy without knowing the "absolute truth" about the universe (which is NOT protein).
These theories are not only present in literature, but other forms as well. Architecture is one main way the postmodern theory is expressed in today's society. Frank Gehry is a very notable postmodern architect. He does not like to conform to the standard, efficient, square way of designing buildings, but instead takes on a very individualistic, and artistic approach. This is one of the most concrete comparison's I can make with postmodernism away from literature.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Essay Time Again?
When entering into an academic conversation about Brave New World, the most interesting area to me would have to start at the points made about how Brave New World relates to education today. I think this is because I want to be a teacher when I finally decide it is time to grow up, but none the less, I think this topic is to say the least very interesting and thought provoking.
Ken Robinson's video draws very interesting points throughout his speech about education today. The main one that sticks out to me is the topic of ADD and ADHD. Many children have been diagnosed with these "diseases" or "disorders" just because they simply do not like to pay attention in class. So, instead of teachers finding interesting ways to engage the children in class, they drug them. Many medications simply make the students very passive and they will sit and seem to pay attention, but are they really learning everything they are supposed to learn?
This can be compared to Brave New World with the government's use of soma, which is very well described by Ricky Gehlhaus in his piece called "Brave New World: The Cost of Stability". He says that "the main reason for [the government encouraging the use of soma] is that soma puts the person into a deep numbness, void of all feeling". He also points out that this drug use is even more encouraged when the citizens are getting creative and thinking on their own.
So basically, my essay will revolve around the argument that educators should learn from the 'mistakes' of the government in Brave New World and get creative with engaging kids instead of drugging them into a stupor.
Ken Robinson's video draws very interesting points throughout his speech about education today. The main one that sticks out to me is the topic of ADD and ADHD. Many children have been diagnosed with these "diseases" or "disorders" just because they simply do not like to pay attention in class. So, instead of teachers finding interesting ways to engage the children in class, they drug them. Many medications simply make the students very passive and they will sit and seem to pay attention, but are they really learning everything they are supposed to learn?
This can be compared to Brave New World with the government's use of soma, which is very well described by Ricky Gehlhaus in his piece called "Brave New World: The Cost of Stability". He says that "the main reason for [the government encouraging the use of soma] is that soma puts the person into a deep numbness, void of all feeling". He also points out that this drug use is even more encouraged when the citizens are getting creative and thinking on their own.
So basically, my essay will revolve around the argument that educators should learn from the 'mistakes' of the government in Brave New World and get creative with engaging kids instead of drugging them into a stupor.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Brave New Education?
First off, I would like to draw the comparison between the RSA Animation video and Brave New World and then I'll tell you what I think. The strongest comparison to me was the ADHD drugs and soma. Sir Ken Robinson points out that Ritalin among other ADHD drugs are given to children that seem to be unable to force themselves to focus on the boring material they are being force fed in schools. They are given drugs that make them "turn their senses completely off" in order to 'pay attention' in school. Instead of livening their senses and stimulating them with exciting activities and information, they are basically putting them to sleep to say they are learning through paying attention in class. Soma has a similar purpose in Brave New World. Lenina showcases this purpose when she tells Bernard, "..take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You'd forget all about them. And instead of being miserable, you'd be jolly" (92). Instead of letting natural senses take place in the society, the government issues soma to make the citizens so apathetic they are just happy all the time.
Now back to the education system itself, I like Robinson's point that all these problems educators are seeing have risen along with the rise of standardized testing. Instead of students figuring out what they like and teachers being able to dive even deeper into subjects it seems their students are genuinely interested in, they are made to force feed facts to their students so they can regurgitate them on a test. Instead of learning to question and be creative, all anyone learns anymore is the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 and 2+2=4. Especially considering the economic system no longer guarantees a good job along with a high school or even college diploma, students should really be allowed to study into what they like to learn about. If a student got to specialize starting in high school or even maybe junior high, in the subject area that interests them, they would be such specialists in that area they would be much more competitive for jobs once they get out on their own. I understand that everyone does need a basic knowledge of all subjects, but specializing even earlier could greatly improve a student's chances of finding a job once they are fresh out of college.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Brave New World
Brave New World is a novel based upon a "utopian" society, much like the society created in Orwell's 1984, however instead of basing the control of the government on fear, it is based upon contentment. The values of today's world are manipulated so that everyone is happy at all times, and if they are not, they can just pop a pill and they are back to feeling fantastic. Basically the goal of the government is to make every aspect of life acceptable to the public, so that they will not complain, and they will work very hard and efficiently all day long.
The value of monogamy is one that is completely destroyed and is very apparently destroyed when Fanny says to Lenina, "everyone belongs to everyone else". Promiscuous sex is encouraged because if there is no sexual frustration that gets built up between partners, then people will be that much less distracted at work and be that much more efficient.
The concepts of impulse and desire in our society today are viewed as good sometimes, but at other times they should be controlled. This is due to a stronger set of moral standards than are present in Brave New World. In that society anything that is distracting should be acted upon to get rid of the inefficiency of being human. In short, the government is trying to dehumanize all the citiziens and literally make them machines, moral standards are gone, and the manipulation of people and humanity is present in literature once again.
The value of monogamy is one that is completely destroyed and is very apparently destroyed when Fanny says to Lenina, "everyone belongs to everyone else". Promiscuous sex is encouraged because if there is no sexual frustration that gets built up between partners, then people will be that much less distracted at work and be that much more efficient.
The concepts of impulse and desire in our society today are viewed as good sometimes, but at other times they should be controlled. This is due to a stronger set of moral standards than are present in Brave New World. In that society anything that is distracting should be acted upon to get rid of the inefficiency of being human. In short, the government is trying to dehumanize all the citiziens and literally make them machines, moral standards are gone, and the manipulation of people and humanity is present in literature once again.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Tempest Prep
In order to prepare to write about The Tempest we have been instructed to think about 'traditional' ways of reading the text versus newer spins on the story. However, what is defined as a 'traditional' reading of The Tempest, maybe I am getting a little too abstract here, but aren't there a few different ways that can be considered 'traditional'?
According to people like George Will, The Tempest would be about imperialism, and how Caliban is portrayed as a native people that is transformed and taken advantage of by outside settlers. That's it. End of story. It is true that many people would argue that this is the 'traditional' view of the text simply because historically, that is what most people tend to believe the inner meaning is. However, couldn't it be argued that people for the entire four hundred years or so since the play was written have been seeing different or deeper meanings in it? Just because they were not super verbal about it, does not mean they did not exist. So the new question for me becomes, are traditional and historically accepted the same thing?
Then we have people like Stephen Greenblatt, who thinks that students are becoming passive and simply accepting everything they are told, who would probably be an advocate for personal reading and analysis. He would more than likely argue that people have been challenging the 'normal' interpretation of literature for hundreds of years and they are no more right than those that have been supporting the 'normal' interpretation.
In all honesty, I am not entirely sure I have entirely answered the prompt given, but this is what came to mind after reading our prompt, but I am more for interpreting the text based upon what I have experienced and how I interpret Shakespeare based on my own reading.
According to people like George Will, The Tempest would be about imperialism, and how Caliban is portrayed as a native people that is transformed and taken advantage of by outside settlers. That's it. End of story. It is true that many people would argue that this is the 'traditional' view of the text simply because historically, that is what most people tend to believe the inner meaning is. However, couldn't it be argued that people for the entire four hundred years or so since the play was written have been seeing different or deeper meanings in it? Just because they were not super verbal about it, does not mean they did not exist. So the new question for me becomes, are traditional and historically accepted the same thing?
Then we have people like Stephen Greenblatt, who thinks that students are becoming passive and simply accepting everything they are told, who would probably be an advocate for personal reading and analysis. He would more than likely argue that people have been challenging the 'normal' interpretation of literature for hundreds of years and they are no more right than those that have been supporting the 'normal' interpretation.
In all honesty, I am not entirely sure I have entirely answered the prompt given, but this is what came to mind after reading our prompt, but I am more for interpreting the text based upon what I have experienced and how I interpret Shakespeare based on my own reading.
Monday, September 27, 2010
A Literary Debate
During the course of my education thus far, I have been taught that there are only one right answer to English standardized multiple choice questions. I have only begun to realize that there are often many correct answers due to a person's experiences, and reading materials in different ways may create more that one 'right' answer. In the articles written by George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, Will argues for more of the 'people may read things in different ways' position, and Greenblatt argues the 'one correct answer' point of view. Their entire arguments were based upon the selection of a woman to the position of chairman on the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the MLA refusing her selection based upon what they said was her merit. Many people however felt that the refusal of her getting the position was based upon her political views.
Will stated many good points, saying that based upon a person's life experience, many aspects of literature can take on different meanings. He also stated, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political", in support for his argument that regardless of what is written or said, politics will be involved because it is a large aspect of life that a writer will include in what they do. He thinks that the particular woman in question is completely qualified for the position and the MLA should allow for more personal opinions to be allowed. In an almost indirect way, he was saying that no matter what a person reads, and what a writer may intend, that person's personal experiences will bring something different to the table and as a result, the writing may take on a different meaning to them than the next person.
Greenblatt seemed to be an older gentleman that still seems to believe that literature has one, concrete meaning that anyone could figure out. He stated that the poor woman in question for the position of chairman should not receive the position because the MLA stated she is not qualified, therefore she is not qualified. The biggest example of how his arguments applies to our class learning recently is when he said, “This is a curious example--since it is very hard to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism", implying that there is one correct way to read the piece and there is a 'correct' meaning to it.
I tend to agree more with Will. Going through the multiple choice questions every Monday, and sometimes being shocked at the 'correct' answer, I have found that there truly are many ways to read pieces of literature. There are politics in all writings because politics influence everyday life regardless of what anyone thinks. And if politics don't affect the writing, they undoubtedly affect the way the reader will read said writing.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Shakespeare and Colonialism
"They're not like us, and for that reason deserve to be ruled". This statement from Edward Said seems to be a recurring theme through history when it comes to colonizing previously uncolonized territories. Literature has been one method of exposing these attitudes, and Shakespeare does just that in Act 2 of The Tempest.
Throughout what I have read of The Tempest so far, it seems to me that Shakespeare is creating a "native people" character through Caliban. I am not sure if I would necessarily call it "unfair", but he is intended to be a native of the island. I feel that Shakespeare over emphasizes the justifications the other characters use for making Caliban their servant, which makes me think that in actuality, he is sympathetic towards Caliban's character and making an argument against colonization.
Shakespeare shows how entirely anxious people can be to take over a group of people (or in this case 'beings') that are unlike them, to make them serve their own purpose. Stephano says, "If I can recover him and keep him tame and get to Naples with him, he’s a present for any emperor that ever trod on neat’s leather." referring to Caliban. This is one of the first impressions we have of Stephano, implying they have not been on the island for very long at all, and the first thing he thinks of doing once he sees something different than himself is how he can train him to be a servant.
This text draws exteme parallels to the video about Native American's portrayal in Hollywood. In the beginning, many Americans held the belief that anything other than themselves was 'bad' or 'inferior'. Hollywood only aided in this belief by using Native Americans as antagonists in almost every film they were represented in. It fueled the colonization beliefs of the superior white male, and greatly hindered America's tolerance for "others".
Throughout what I have read of The Tempest so far, it seems to me that Shakespeare is creating a "native people" character through Caliban. I am not sure if I would necessarily call it "unfair", but he is intended to be a native of the island. I feel that Shakespeare over emphasizes the justifications the other characters use for making Caliban their servant, which makes me think that in actuality, he is sympathetic towards Caliban's character and making an argument against colonization.
Shakespeare shows how entirely anxious people can be to take over a group of people (or in this case 'beings') that are unlike them, to make them serve their own purpose. Stephano says, "If I can recover him and keep him tame and get to Naples with him, he’s a present for any emperor that ever trod on neat’s leather." referring to Caliban. This is one of the first impressions we have of Stephano, implying they have not been on the island for very long at all, and the first thing he thinks of doing once he sees something different than himself is how he can train him to be a servant.
This text draws exteme parallels to the video about Native American's portrayal in Hollywood. In the beginning, many Americans held the belief that anything other than themselves was 'bad' or 'inferior'. Hollywood only aided in this belief by using Native Americans as antagonists in almost every film they were represented in. It fueled the colonization beliefs of the superior white male, and greatly hindered America's tolerance for "others".
Monday, September 13, 2010
The Tempest Act I
There are many instances in Act I of The Tempest in which Prospero uses his words to manipulate those around him to do what he wants. He manipulates his own daughter Miranda, a slave which he despises, Caliban, and his servant Ariel who is just trying to gain his freedom.
He uses the story of how he was taken out of power in Milan by his treacherous brother to gain pity from his daughter. These feelings cause Miranda to love and trust him undoubtingly. He uses her good nature and emotions to win her unwavering loyalty. An example of this is when he was telling her the story of how the brother took him out of power, she says "Alack, for pity! I, not remembering how I cried out then,will cry it o'er again. It is a hint, that wrings mine eyes to ’t". She was so young she does not really remember all this happening, and upon hearing the retelling of the story she believes that she must have been crying when it all happened, but it is such a terrible story she will cry again because of the torment her father went through.
Prospero uses a threat of violence due to his powers of magic to make Caliban comply with his wishes. During their conversation, Caliban is rude to Prospero because Prospero took away the island from him before enslaving him. After Caliban curses Prospero, wishing malicious things on him, Prospero responds by saying, "For this, be sure, tonight thou shalt have cramps, side-stitches that shall pen thy breath up. Urchins shall, forth at vast of night that they may work, all exercise on thee. Thou shalt be pinched as thick as honeycomb, each pinch more stinging than bees that made 'em". After this threat, Caliban remains as rude, but he does not blatantly wish harm on Prospero.
He also uses the good things he has done in the past over Ariel. Ariel was a servant to Sycorax, and she treated him horribly. She locked him up inside a hollow pine tree and died before she could let him out. Only people with magical powers could let him out, and Prospero did so. Ariel was then forced into a certain number of year's servitude, which Prospero took a year off for being a good servant who never lied or complained. When Ariel's time was up, he asked Prospero for his freedom, but Prospero maintained that his sentence was not up and he had another year remaining. He also reminded Ariel what he had done for him saying, "Dull thing, I say so. He, that Caliban whom now I keep in service. Thou best know’st what torment I did find thee in. Thy groans of ever angry bears. It was a torment did make wolves howl and penetrate the breasts to lay upon the damned, which Sycorax could not again undo. It was mine art, when I arrived and heard thee, that made gape the pine and let thee out." This causes Ariel to thank Prospero instead of fight and argue for his freedom that was rightfully his.
He uses the story of how he was taken out of power in Milan by his treacherous brother to gain pity from his daughter. These feelings cause Miranda to love and trust him undoubtingly. He uses her good nature and emotions to win her unwavering loyalty. An example of this is when he was telling her the story of how the brother took him out of power, she says "Alack, for pity! I, not remembering how I cried out then,will cry it o'er again. It is a hint, that wrings mine eyes to ’t". She was so young she does not really remember all this happening, and upon hearing the retelling of the story she believes that she must have been crying when it all happened, but it is such a terrible story she will cry again because of the torment her father went through.
Prospero uses a threat of violence due to his powers of magic to make Caliban comply with his wishes. During their conversation, Caliban is rude to Prospero because Prospero took away the island from him before enslaving him. After Caliban curses Prospero, wishing malicious things on him, Prospero responds by saying, "For this, be sure, tonight thou shalt have cramps, side-stitches that shall pen thy breath up. Urchins shall, forth at vast of night that they may work, all exercise on thee. Thou shalt be pinched as thick as honeycomb, each pinch more stinging than bees that made 'em". After this threat, Caliban remains as rude, but he does not blatantly wish harm on Prospero.
He also uses the good things he has done in the past over Ariel. Ariel was a servant to Sycorax, and she treated him horribly. She locked him up inside a hollow pine tree and died before she could let him out. Only people with magical powers could let him out, and Prospero did so. Ariel was then forced into a certain number of year's servitude, which Prospero took a year off for being a good servant who never lied or complained. When Ariel's time was up, he asked Prospero for his freedom, but Prospero maintained that his sentence was not up and he had another year remaining. He also reminded Ariel what he had done for him saying, "Dull thing, I say so. He, that Caliban whom now I keep in service. Thou best know’st what torment I did find thee in. Thy groans of ever angry bears. It was a torment did make wolves howl and penetrate the breasts to lay upon the damned, which Sycorax could not again undo. It was mine art, when I arrived and heard thee, that made gape the pine and let thee out." This causes Ariel to thank Prospero instead of fight and argue for his freedom that was rightfully his.
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Danger of a Single Story
Going through school, we have always been taught to trust the text books we have been given, but also to hear both sides of a story before we make a judgment. When it comes to the history text books in Texas, it is almost unclear what those students should do. Should they trust the text book their educators have approved for them, or should they investigate all of history, including the parts the educators are taking out?
In my opinion, it should not matter so much what is in the text book itself, but the teachers should engage students in a more analytical discussion about events that happened in history. As one of the authors stated in the article, they should have students question why certain historical events took place, not just memorize what happened on what date.
It seems to me that the Texan educators mentioned are trying to give students an exceptional view of America. However, learning from the mistakes the United States has made in the past will keep the next generations of Americans from making the same mistakes. The entire point of learning about history is finding out what people did in a certain situation, and what they could have done differently to have a more positive outcome.
All in all, it is the job of the text book to present students with the facts about what happened in the past. Having an unbiased view of history will allow people to make their own judgments about what is right and wrong about the past, and how to change their future to make sure positive things happen again, and to make sure negative things do not re-occur. If the text book is not putting this opinion in, it is the teacher's job to make sure the students are engaging in the analytical thought that will lead them to their own conclusions.
In my opinion, it should not matter so much what is in the text book itself, but the teachers should engage students in a more analytical discussion about events that happened in history. As one of the authors stated in the article, they should have students question why certain historical events took place, not just memorize what happened on what date.
It seems to me that the Texan educators mentioned are trying to give students an exceptional view of America. However, learning from the mistakes the United States has made in the past will keep the next generations of Americans from making the same mistakes. The entire point of learning about history is finding out what people did in a certain situation, and what they could have done differently to have a more positive outcome.
All in all, it is the job of the text book to present students with the facts about what happened in the past. Having an unbiased view of history will allow people to make their own judgments about what is right and wrong about the past, and how to change their future to make sure positive things happen again, and to make sure negative things do not re-occur. If the text book is not putting this opinion in, it is the teacher's job to make sure the students are engaging in the analytical thought that will lead them to their own conclusions.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)